Adelaide consumer tribunal dismisses AUD 249 vacuum refund claim over unproven charging fault

The consumer claims tribunal in Adelaide dismissed Elise Morton’s claim for an AUD 249 refund from Finchline Home Supplies Pty Ltd for a cordless vacuum and charger. She sought repayment in exchange for returning both items, but the tribunal found that the available evidence did not establish a charging fault. It awarded nothing.

The dispute turned on the gap between a customer’s report of an early failure and a shop’s limited check. Morton said the vacuum stopped charging after two uses; Finchline recorded that its charging light came on during a five-minute counter test. Neither account resolved whether the appliance charged reliably.

The receipt established the purchase price and a return visit six days later. That prompt return made Morton’s account more persuasive, but the document said nothing about the vacuum’s condition.

The tribunal treated her account as consistent and specific, supporting the possibility of a product problem. However, it was relayed through counsel rather than given as admitted witness testimony. There was no technical evidence, video or witness confirming the failure, and the batteries had not been separately checked.

Finchline’s email supplied a limited counterpoint. It recorded the charging light coming on, but did not establish continued charging, performance through a cleaning session or any later test. The tribunal did not treat it as proof that the vacuum was sound.

Because Morton bore the burden of supporting her claim, the unresolved evidence was insufficient to establish the fault. Proof of the price alone could not justify repayment, and there was no established basis for partial relief.

The offer of another test did not determine the outcome. The record did not show whether Morton accepted it or whether testing occurred. The claim failed for lack of proof of the product problem, not because she had refused a completed repair opportunity.

Morton’s side relied on the short interval between purchase and return, her reported attempts to charge the vacuum in two sockets, and her account that other appliances worked from those sockets. She maintained that she returned it because she believed it was faulty, not because she had changed her mind.

Her side acknowledged the evidential gaps but argued that a briefly illuminated charging light did not explain repeated failure at home or demonstrate reliable operation.

Finchline likewise accepted the limits of its test. It argued that the fault’s cause and seriousness remained uncertain and asked the tribunal to refuse the full refund, pointing to further testing as a practical next step rather than claiming the appliance had been proven sound.

Morton bought the cordless vacuum and charger for AUD 249 and returned six days later. According to her account, the early charging problem left her unwilling to accept a replacement.

The judgment resolves the refund claim on the supplied evidence, not the appliance’s actual condition. It leaves the cause of the reported failure unresolved and expressly stops short of finding the vacuum conclusively free of fault.